The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Technology as come in leaps and bounds in the past few decades. From computers that filled rooms that were cooled by large fans to super-powered computers that fit neatly onto a small desk. The usage of computers has radically changed as well, from primarily a number crunching machine to a all purpose unit that basically does what we ask it to.
Who would of dreamed years ago that we would all be communicating worldwide via desktop computers, playing games that are close to touching reality. Microchips that can control laser guided missiles and can process commands at a phenomenal rate.
Although I agree that the games now are overall much superior to what they were when the old Vic20 and BBC computers were about, it does make me sad when I think that computers these days are advancing, not for the enviroment they are within, but to satisfy people playing ever demanding games.
I understand that PC's have other good usages such as graphical and wordprocessing abilities, but these uses do not justify the processors that are installed these days.
It would be much better if things were slowed down to a comfortable level so other technologies can be developed first which can then use existing PC power and develop things with yesterday's technology rather than next weeks.
For instance, wouldn't it be a great idea if your PC controlled things around your house. You may say they have already done this, but as an installation engineer, there's no immediate evidence that this is going to be implemented for many years to come. PC's CAN control things such as heating, lights, security measures, but because as I previously explained, because PC's are developing for other reasons, these ideas are not being used.
Cars are beginning to use computer technology but it is mostly available in more expensive vehicles. If a microchip can fly a guided missile, surely it can drive a car?
There is going to come a time when existing technology will demand a slow down of PC development so it can all catch up.
Fine, a game, 100% realistic graphics, gameplay, audio, visual the lot - what next?
Who would of dreamed years ago that we would all be communicating worldwide via desktop computers, playing games that are close to touching reality. Microchips that can control laser guided missiles and can process commands at a phenomenal rate.
Although I agree that the games now are overall much superior to what they were when the old Vic20 and BBC computers were about, it does make me sad when I think that computers these days are advancing, not for the enviroment they are within, but to satisfy people playing ever demanding games.
I understand that PC's have other good usages such as graphical and wordprocessing abilities, but these uses do not justify the processors that are installed these days.
It would be much better if things were slowed down to a comfortable level so other technologies can be developed first which can then use existing PC power and develop things with yesterday's technology rather than next weeks.
For instance, wouldn't it be a great idea if your PC controlled things around your house. You may say they have already done this, but as an installation engineer, there's no immediate evidence that this is going to be implemented for many years to come. PC's CAN control things such as heating, lights, security measures, but because as I previously explained, because PC's are developing for other reasons, these ideas are not being used.
Cars are beginning to use computer technology but it is mostly available in more expensive vehicles. If a microchip can fly a guided missile, surely it can drive a car?
There is going to come a time when existing technology will demand a slow down of PC development so it can all catch up.
Fine, a game, 100% realistic graphics, gameplay, audio, visual the lot - what next?
Page:
Muhahah, PCs will never rule the earth, I will!
funkygamer wrote:
> Hokay, so we all kind of agree that PC systems move progress to fast... How
> about using a console-type system to control your home?
An excellent idea! - I am going to design and patent a low voltage system which controls lighting, heating, security, entertainment and other things such as automatic curtains and appliances. The ideas are endless what could be done from a console, that can be connected to an existing PC or some other imput method.
Hmmm, perhaps this is my break..... :)
Total Home Automation ltd
I suppose there must be some way of controlling exisitng systems with add-on modules.
> Hokay, so we all kind of agree that PC systems move progress to fast... How
> about using a console-type system to control your home?
An excellent idea! - I am going to design and patent a low voltage system which controls lighting, heating, security, entertainment and other things such as automatic curtains and appliances. The ideas are endless what could be done from a console, that can be connected to an existing PC or some other imput method.
Hmmm, perhaps this is my break..... :)
Total Home Automation ltd
I suppose there must be some way of controlling exisitng systems with add-on modules.
Windows powered cars... *shudder*.
The thing with having computers drive cars is that every car would have to be changed, and this stuff would have to be perfect and totally bug free.
Imagine driving down the road, its a 50 zone, so your doing 57ish (hey, doesnt everybody?) and all of a sudden, the car in front malfunctions. It just stops dead. Your hurteling along at 57 miles an hour and bang, one hell of a mess.
Imagine driving down the road, its a 50 zone, so your doing 57ish (hey, doesnt everybody?) and all of a sudden, the car in front malfunctions. It just stops dead. Your hurteling along at 57 miles an hour and bang, one hell of a mess.
Hokay, so we all kind of agree that PC systems move progress to fast... How about using a console-type system to control your home?
Think about it, consoles have a life span of 3-5 years. You buy a new PC, you are lucky it it is still considered good in 3-5 months.
The advantages of using a console-type system would be multiple
1) A few good systems (think Sega / Sony / Nintendo, but maybe Electrolux / Zanussi / Dyson produce 'em instead) compete for the "Electronic Home Control" market, rather than multiple PC vendors
2) Engineers write lean & mean code specifically for those systems, maybe in C++ so they can port code in the way games are ported
3) Consoles can take inputs, so there should be no trouble discerning the heat of the house / fridge, motion detectors etc.
4) Break the upgrade cycle - it would be like a set top box which to might control via the web or a remote control, when upgrade time comes it could dial up for a bios upgrade (like Set-Top-Boxes already do), or you could just unplug it and plug the new box in.
As for microchips driving cars, that sort of stuff is being researched now, I saw a program where they had a row of driverless cars following the path of a lead car being driven by a human, pretty cool. But people do not trust technology, it will take a while for public perception of new technology to come round to actually trusting it to take control of a car you are in...
Hey, airplanes have electronic pilots, and we trust them, maybe that is because there has been billions spent on research and stuff, we just do not expect our little cars to be up to that kind of thing.
Think about it, consoles have a life span of 3-5 years. You buy a new PC, you are lucky it it is still considered good in 3-5 months.
The advantages of using a console-type system would be multiple
1) A few good systems (think Sega / Sony / Nintendo, but maybe Electrolux / Zanussi / Dyson produce 'em instead) compete for the "Electronic Home Control" market, rather than multiple PC vendors
2) Engineers write lean & mean code specifically for those systems, maybe in C++ so they can port code in the way games are ported
3) Consoles can take inputs, so there should be no trouble discerning the heat of the house / fridge, motion detectors etc.
4) Break the upgrade cycle - it would be like a set top box which to might control via the web or a remote control, when upgrade time comes it could dial up for a bios upgrade (like Set-Top-Boxes already do), or you could just unplug it and plug the new box in.
As for microchips driving cars, that sort of stuff is being researched now, I saw a program where they had a row of driverless cars following the path of a lead car being driven by a human, pretty cool. But people do not trust technology, it will take a while for public perception of new technology to come round to actually trusting it to take control of a car you are in...
Hey, airplanes have electronic pilots, and we trust them, maybe that is because there has been billions spent on research and stuff, we just do not expect our little cars to be up to that kind of thing.
> Great! - I also enjoy the privalege of a 1ghz processor - the trouble is I play games, surf the internet, do newletters and web publishing - what a waste really of processor. What I am saying is that the processor is capable of doing a lot more useful tasks in society.
So go and implement stuff! :)
Actually I think you'll find embedded systems /are/ becoming a lot more abundant than you may think.. cpus are getting into places, but embedded systems hardly need your 2.2GHz.
[snip]
> What I am saying here is other technology ie heating systems are certainly getting more advanced but the ideal scenario of a PC controlled home is far away as current materials do not allow it easily to be intergrated with current PC technology.
That's scary. I don't want those damn script kiddies rooting my toaster. Heating systems maybe, I can imagine that being at least partially useful, but exposing this stuff to security concerns on the internet isn't friendly.
> Isn't it debated when missiles stray off course and kills someone?
Not when you're a major government as opposed to BMW or Ford, but that's certainly a seperate topic.
> Can anyone honestly say that their 1ghz processor or 2.2ghz processor is honestly being put to the best use?
Well, upgrading from my 120mhz cyrix to this 650 duron /felt/ damn nice, and I'm willing to bet it increased quite a chunk of my productivity with whatever I'm doing.
> No game requires this processing speed, no application needs it - if it does then I'm sorry, it's lazy programming.
This is an excellent point. If we sat down all today's Microsoft engineers and Linux developers in front of 386s and forced them to make their code usable, we'd have infinitely less bloated code on our hands. But then we're all used to the Microsoft-feeding-Intel cycle, forcing the perpetual upgrade cycle of software and hardware. Innovation seems to have disappeared from much of the software and hardware marketplace. Pity.
So go and implement stuff! :)
Actually I think you'll find embedded systems /are/ becoming a lot more abundant than you may think.. cpus are getting into places, but embedded systems hardly need your 2.2GHz.
[snip]
> What I am saying here is other technology ie heating systems are certainly getting more advanced but the ideal scenario of a PC controlled home is far away as current materials do not allow it easily to be intergrated with current PC technology.
That's scary. I don't want those damn script kiddies rooting my toaster. Heating systems maybe, I can imagine that being at least partially useful, but exposing this stuff to security concerns on the internet isn't friendly.
> Isn't it debated when missiles stray off course and kills someone?
Not when you're a major government as opposed to BMW or Ford, but that's certainly a seperate topic.
> Can anyone honestly say that their 1ghz processor or 2.2ghz processor is honestly being put to the best use?
Well, upgrading from my 120mhz cyrix to this 650 duron /felt/ damn nice, and I'm willing to bet it increased quite a chunk of my productivity with whatever I'm doing.
> No game requires this processing speed, no application needs it - if it does then I'm sorry, it's lazy programming.
This is an excellent point. If we sat down all today's Microsoft engineers and Linux developers in front of 386s and forced them to make their code usable, we'd have infinitely less bloated code on our hands. But then we're all used to the Microsoft-feeding-Intel cycle, forcing the perpetual upgrade cycle of software and hardware. Innovation seems to have disappeared from much of the software and hardware marketplace. Pity.
Reaper[oV] wrote:
> I don't think that PCs should slow in development as such - once the technology
> to use PCs for applications is there on a basic level, it could (in theory) be
> used on any computer, as they have a standard architecture..
But people aren't happy using old technology.
The next step
> that I could see for the technology itself would be a complete change of design
> - reworking of buses, changes how the components interact with each other,
> changing what there is in your box.
This seems a good idea, getting away from the boxed PC, designing a real "multiuse" PC. - I can never understand why when the dirt hits the fan, we need to insert floppy disks to prepare our drive - why can't we have chips inside or some kind of flash memory that stores this vital information.
There will
> be a time when CPU advances slow, as there are physical limitations to the size
> you can make the parts. Beyond that..dual processors are the easy solution, but
> software would also need rewriting to use both - this could be a good time to
> change the architecture.
I disagree here - The technology is about to make super processors which don't heat up and are very small physically. The trouble is, this technology is going to be used and abused by certain people first before it even enters the public domain. I don't want to start a scandle here but anyone wanting more info on this, please email me and I will forward you the url where a top USA company, allegedly know about this technology and where it came from.
Truth is, there are still applications which use all of the CPU, and
> would continue to do so as you put fast ones in there. I think it's more likely
> (in the short term) that devices in your home will be computer controlled, but
> by a seperate and dedicated system simply designed to do things aorund the home.
> It would also reduce costs immensely, as trying to work a completely new system
> in to our current aging PC architecture would make it bloated and more
> complicated than it need be. Perhaps that could be another idea for the next
> designs, integrating them in to our houses as more than just beige boxen, with
> parts which are specifically designed to do things in our houses.
I couldn't agree more, however, these conrols would need some human monitoring or intervention as we normally pursue to do. This could be in the form of a dedicated system as you are saying but with a link to a PC in some form.
> I don't think that PCs should slow in development as such - once the technology
> to use PCs for applications is there on a basic level, it could (in theory) be
> used on any computer, as they have a standard architecture..
But people aren't happy using old technology.
The next step
> that I could see for the technology itself would be a complete change of design
> - reworking of buses, changes how the components interact with each other,
> changing what there is in your box.
This seems a good idea, getting away from the boxed PC, designing a real "multiuse" PC. - I can never understand why when the dirt hits the fan, we need to insert floppy disks to prepare our drive - why can't we have chips inside or some kind of flash memory that stores this vital information.
There will
> be a time when CPU advances slow, as there are physical limitations to the size
> you can make the parts. Beyond that..dual processors are the easy solution, but
> software would also need rewriting to use both - this could be a good time to
> change the architecture.
I disagree here - The technology is about to make super processors which don't heat up and are very small physically. The trouble is, this technology is going to be used and abused by certain people first before it even enters the public domain. I don't want to start a scandle here but anyone wanting more info on this, please email me and I will forward you the url where a top USA company, allegedly know about this technology and where it came from.
Truth is, there are still applications which use all of the CPU, and
> would continue to do so as you put fast ones in there. I think it's more likely
> (in the short term) that devices in your home will be computer controlled, but
> by a seperate and dedicated system simply designed to do things aorund the home.
> It would also reduce costs immensely, as trying to work a completely new system
> in to our current aging PC architecture would make it bloated and more
> complicated than it need be. Perhaps that could be another idea for the next
> designs, integrating them in to our houses as more than just beige boxen, with
> parts which are specifically designed to do things in our houses.
I couldn't agree more, however, these conrols would need some human monitoring or intervention as we normally pursue to do. This could be in the form of a dedicated system as you are saying but with a link to a PC in some form.
Insomnia wrote:
> What's wrong with ever-increasingly fast processors? I like fast processors.
> Fast is good, and trailing edge technology is stupidly cheap, meaning I could
> buy a 750mhz Duron for next to nothing, which My Chosen Operating System (TM)
> would run excellently on.
Great! - I also enjoy the privalege of a 1ghz processor - the trouble is I play games, surf the internet, do newletters and web publishing - what a waste really of processor. What I am saying is that the processor is capable of doing a lot more useful tasks in society.
Also, how is your PC controlling your central
> heating in any way useful? The bluetooth example of your toaster asking your
> fridge to tell the microwave to buy more pizza is all very nice, but I'd prefer
> to control my own shopping list thankyou very much..
Usefullness of a PC controlling central heating - Sensors could be placed all over the house feeding back to your PC where comfort zones and air conditioning could be controlled with voice activication - The technology is about - it's being used in some applications - ie the hospital I work in uses a PC to control the heating - it's more efficient than a human doing it.
What I am saying here is other technology ie heating systems are certainly getting more advanced but the ideal scenario of a PC controlled home is far away as current materials do not allow it easily to be intergrated with current PC technology.
Furthermore I would
> debate that driving a car is easier than flying a missile. Consider at least the
> legal aspect when one of these cars kills someone. Computer /assisted/ driving
> is happening, such as braking automatically if you've fallen asleep, and I'm
> sure this will be implemented soon. Honestly most of this stuff doesn't appeal
> to me as being amazingly useful, but if you think it is, go and implement it :)
Isn't it debated when missiles stray off course and kills someone?
Can anyone honestly say that their 1ghz processor or 2.2ghz processor is honestly being put to the best use?
No game requires this processing speed, no application needs it - if it does then I'm sorry, it's lazy programming.
> What's wrong with ever-increasingly fast processors? I like fast processors.
> Fast is good, and trailing edge technology is stupidly cheap, meaning I could
> buy a 750mhz Duron for next to nothing, which My Chosen Operating System (TM)
> would run excellently on.
Great! - I also enjoy the privalege of a 1ghz processor - the trouble is I play games, surf the internet, do newletters and web publishing - what a waste really of processor. What I am saying is that the processor is capable of doing a lot more useful tasks in society.
Also, how is your PC controlling your central
> heating in any way useful? The bluetooth example of your toaster asking your
> fridge to tell the microwave to buy more pizza is all very nice, but I'd prefer
> to control my own shopping list thankyou very much..
Usefullness of a PC controlling central heating - Sensors could be placed all over the house feeding back to your PC where comfort zones and air conditioning could be controlled with voice activication - The technology is about - it's being used in some applications - ie the hospital I work in uses a PC to control the heating - it's more efficient than a human doing it.
What I am saying here is other technology ie heating systems are certainly getting more advanced but the ideal scenario of a PC controlled home is far away as current materials do not allow it easily to be intergrated with current PC technology.
Furthermore I would
> debate that driving a car is easier than flying a missile. Consider at least the
> legal aspect when one of these cars kills someone. Computer /assisted/ driving
> is happening, such as braking automatically if you've fallen asleep, and I'm
> sure this will be implemented soon. Honestly most of this stuff doesn't appeal
> to me as being amazingly useful, but if you think it is, go and implement it :)
Isn't it debated when missiles stray off course and kills someone?
Can anyone honestly say that their 1ghz processor or 2.2ghz processor is honestly being put to the best use?
No game requires this processing speed, no application needs it - if it does then I'm sorry, it's lazy programming.
I don't think that PCs should slow in development as such - once the technology to use PCs for applications is there on a basic level, it could (in theory) be used on any computer, as they have a standard architecture..
The next step that I could see for the technology itself would be a complete change of design - reworking of buses, changes how the components interact with each other, changing what there is in your box.
The are still applications that push the latest processors (games and 3d design apps being obvious examples), but just because technology has advanced, it doesn't mean that everyone has to start using it. This sort of power has been around for years, primarily in multiple CPU machines and high demand business users. The changes and increases we hear of are at the consumer end of the market - the new 0.13 micron core for the next series of AMD CPUs for example - this allows consumers to get the kind of power that has been available at higher costs to other users for years.
There will be a time when CPU advances slow, as there are physical limitations to the size you can make the parts. Beyond that..dual processors are the easy solution, but software would also need rewriting to use both - this could be a good time to change the architecture.
Obviously, computers are advancing in all areas, processor speed is perhaps the most obvious to us with high street companies thrusting big numbers in our faces to make us buy their latest offerings, but how would stopping the progress help? We halt it, technologies catch up, make use of what we have (although I can't think of many other practical household applications for a computer that we don't already have far to much power for), and then we start the process again, and have to halt it at some time in the future.
Truth is, there are still applications which use all of the CPU, and would continue to do so as you put fast ones in there. I think it's more likely (in the short term) that devices in your home will be computer controlled, but by a seperate and dedicated system simply designed to do things aorund the home. It would also reduce costs immensely, as trying to work a completely new system in to our current aging PC architecture would make it bloated and more complicated than it need be. Perhaps that could be another idea for the next designs, integrating them in to our houses as more than just beige boxen, with parts which are specifically designed to do things in our houses.
The next step that I could see for the technology itself would be a complete change of design - reworking of buses, changes how the components interact with each other, changing what there is in your box.
The are still applications that push the latest processors (games and 3d design apps being obvious examples), but just because technology has advanced, it doesn't mean that everyone has to start using it. This sort of power has been around for years, primarily in multiple CPU machines and high demand business users. The changes and increases we hear of are at the consumer end of the market - the new 0.13 micron core for the next series of AMD CPUs for example - this allows consumers to get the kind of power that has been available at higher costs to other users for years.
There will be a time when CPU advances slow, as there are physical limitations to the size you can make the parts. Beyond that..dual processors are the easy solution, but software would also need rewriting to use both - this could be a good time to change the architecture.
Obviously, computers are advancing in all areas, processor speed is perhaps the most obvious to us with high street companies thrusting big numbers in our faces to make us buy their latest offerings, but how would stopping the progress help? We halt it, technologies catch up, make use of what we have (although I can't think of many other practical household applications for a computer that we don't already have far to much power for), and then we start the process again, and have to halt it at some time in the future.
Truth is, there are still applications which use all of the CPU, and would continue to do so as you put fast ones in there. I think it's more likely (in the short term) that devices in your home will be computer controlled, but by a seperate and dedicated system simply designed to do things aorund the home. It would also reduce costs immensely, as trying to work a completely new system in to our current aging PC architecture would make it bloated and more complicated than it need be. Perhaps that could be another idea for the next designs, integrating them in to our houses as more than just beige boxen, with parts which are specifically designed to do things in our houses.
Page: